Re: gcc 2.95.2 vs 2.91
On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:37:28AM -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> David Welton wrote:
> > So, I was talking with Cort regarding my ongoing RS6K troubles, and he
> > mentioned that trying an older compiler might help.
> > I did indeed have a better time of getting a v2.2.14-preX going with
> > the 2.91 on my yellow dog partition.
> > If we don't have a compiler that can generate good code for kernels,
> > this is bad...
> > Ideas?
> *sigh* this isn't just powerpc. this is x86 too. I can't get ANY kernels
> to compile with gcc 2.95 or 2.91. Folks, I think at this point it's
> SERIOUSLY advisable to just abandon gcc 2.9x as primary and change it to
> optional. There's just too much stuff that will NOT compile with it. I
> mean, hell, the damn thing is spitting out asm errors for 'mov' on x86!
> I've had NO problems with 126.96.36.199 or 2.8.x to date.
Just as information,
i had lots of problem compiling kernels with 2.9x gcc, but it resulted to be a
if you have binutils-multiarch installed, please remove it and try compiling
the kernel again.